-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/18/2013 12:44 PM, mick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:02:29 -0400 krishna e bera keb@cyblings.on.ca allegedly wrote:
On 13-07-18 11:51 AM, mick wrote:
I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity.
Makes me wonder if there is some kind of legal pressure being applied to American ISPs to disallow Tor and similar services and infrastructure. Or perhaps owners of some ISPs are polarizing toward the PATRIOT act side especially after the Snowden thing.
I'd like to think it may simply be a form of "self censorship" i.e. the ISP is wary of some future, unspecified, action and simply seeks a quiet life. I can't see legal pressure working - tor violates no laws.
One could enforce a contract in court, but chances are that would totally turn an ISP away from allowing Tor in the future.
We need more ISP's that are in it for more than just the $$$, but if the tech saavy people banded together to create a speech friendly ISP, it would be easier for Tor adversaries to block their IP space.
Education is important but the battle between geek and suit was lost long ago.
- --- Marina Brown
Mick
Mick Morgan gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B 72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312 http://baldric.net
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays